Greek peltasts

[simonw]

Analyses of the sources isn't going to resolve this discussion one way or another as they use terms such as 'peltast' for different things at different times.

The bottom line is what you think 'peltasts' were depends upon how you interpret that the various troop types operated on the ancient battlefield.

From my point of view, and it is a personal point of view, infantry in ancient armies either skirmished in front of or behind or to the sides of the main 'battleline' OR they formed up IN the main 'battleline'.

Now I admit that some troops had a better capability to 'operate' in 'terrain' than others but this 'area of operation' and tactical 'role' was normally determined before the battle commenced and they were deployed accordingly. It didn't just 'arise' during the course of a battle such that they could 'switch' from one style of combat to another. Either way, their 'combat objectives' were defined before the battle commenced and they were deployed as appropriate to fulfil them. If this was 'skirmishing' then this is what they did. If they were in the main battleline, then they formed up for close combat. If they were to operate in rough terrain then they were probably deployed in some 'looser' 'formation' than if they were in the main battleline and so they were considered by their Commander as being  'capable' of so doing.

What I have difficulty with is with troops switching from one style of combat and/or tactical function to another, different one during the course of a battle. This is why I have difficulty with (WRG-style) Light Medium Infantry which can effectively skirmish but can also engage main battleline troops in melee with a fair chance of success (e.g. WRG Thracian Peltasts with Romphia and Javlins  v Hoplites). I just don't think that this happened and therefore that it is a fictional 'wargamer's troop classification' that allows unrealistic tactical flexibility  which 'skews' the game.

Infantry in ancient armies either formed up as skirmishers or in the battleline. They didn't switch between the two roles. Some troops had the flexibility to operate in rough terrain and so take and hold terrain features but this 'flexibility' can be achieved in a game without the need for an entirely new troop type endowed with a 'multi-role combat capability' which they 'turn on and off' during a game at a player's whim.

So to me, 'early' Peltasts were skirmishers' Later Peltasts could be anything varying from Guard Phalangites through Thuero-bearing main Battleline infantry to skirmishers. Determining the latter is where analysis of the historical texts is key. Polybius and later writer's cannot be simply interpreted as referring to the equivalent of 5th Centruy BC skirmishers when they referred to peltasts. What they meant, needs to be interpreted by analysis and research on a case by case basis. Creating a single troop-classification called 'Peltast' simply does not 'fit the bill'

[dwkay57]

Indeed Anthony! I'm now off to hoover with the dyson.

[Jim Webster]

Indeed Anthony! I'm now off to hoover with the dyson.

don't damage the oil cloth 

[shaun holdsworth]

I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest, I never had a problem with as a multi role troop type though not on the same day . I was more interested why they became only skirmishers as they dont seam to be as good at chasing of the Thracian "peltasts" they are supposed to imitate ?

[Erpingham]

I seem to have stirred up a hornets nest,

No, you've exposed an area of debate  

I was interested to see Duncan's comment about PB claiming "later peltasts" carried thureoi and had a more close-combat role.  This is as I remember it in my younger days.  Yet, it seems peltasts always carried a pelta, though not always a crescent one, and the thureos-bearers weren't peltasts.  It also seems that the troop type called an "Iphicratean hoplite" is now called an "Iphicratean peltast", if he existed.  So some folks clearly think later peltasts could be like light hoplites but carrying small shields.  It's all very confusing .

But I think the original question was a good one to expose the evolution of light infantry in the Greek world.

[simonw]

Anthony et. al.,
It's an interesting topic of debate but in the end, I expect that there won't be any consensus.

In Tactica 2 (the main ruleset that I use), Thracian (and early Greek) 'Peltasts' are 'loosely based' (3 figs per 6cm in 25/8mm scale) and are classed as 'Massed Light Infantry'  grouped into units of between 12 and 27 figures in number. This compares with 'Skirmishers' which operate on a 3cm/fig individual figure frontage and have no particular formation but rather operate as individual figures, 'clumped' into whatever configuration is most suitable and achievable within their movement distance constraints.

Skirmishers have NO (zero) melee capability against Massed Troops of any kind. Each individual figure contacted is simply dispersed. Skirmishers can only melee enemy skirmishers.

Massed Light infantry (operating in units) can about face and Evade but cannot interpenetrate other massed units. They have the same Missile Capability (if so armed) as Skirmishers BUT they CAN engage other Massed Units in Melee albeit they have very little chance of success against formed Heavy Foot if contacting them frontally. Typically, their Fighting Value is only 3 to 6 and they count as zero ranks in depth. This compares with Heavy Foot which are denser (4 figures v 3 figures), usually have a higher Fighting Value of 4 to6 ot 5 to 6 AND receive 2 extra melee dice for each rank depth agaisnt the Massed Light Infantry.

However, Massed Light Infantry are more potent in Terrain where Heavy Foot will be disordered and can be effective attacking the Flanks and/or Rear of Heavy Foot units.

So, you can see that there is still a more manoeuvrable Infantry class (called Massed Light Infantry) between true 'Skirmishers' and the main battleline Heavy Foot infantry class. This 'Massed Light Infantry can only really enter Melee with Heavy Foot with any optimism in rough Terrain or if the Heavy Foot are Disordered, badly 'beaten up' already or from the Flank or Rear. They are very effective in driving off enemy Skirmishers though.

In sum therefore, I think that this treatment for 'Early Peltasts' is OK, even if I could prefer them to be simply regarded as true Skirmishers. The reasons being that they are ineffective in combat against Heavy foot (under normal circumstances) but are capable of driving off enemy Skirmishers with relative ease.

With respect to later 'Peltasts' or 'Thureophoroi', I simply class these as Heavy Foot of the main battle line. In scenario games, These 'Later Peltasts' can be given a capability to avoid becoming Disordered in Rough Terrain but continue to act, in all other respects, as normal Heavy Foot.

Overall, the 'game balance' of Massed Light Infantry in Tactica 2 seems good. They are a 'useful' troop type useful in driving off Skirmishers given their melee capability, terrain capability and increased manoeuvrability, BUT they are very limited in their ability to engage Heavy Infantry of the main Battle line and so cannot 'usurp' the battleline troop's role.

Conversely, for 'Later Peltasts/Thureophoroi' and arguably for Thracians, these can be classed as  main  battleline troops as normal Heavy Infantry in the case of the former and possibly as Warband in the case of the latter (if so inclined).

Cheers
Simon

[Andreas Johansson]

It also seems that the troop type called an "Iphicratean hoplite" is now called an "Iphicratean peltast", if he existed.

I note Luke Ueda-Sarson in the piece Nik linked advocated "Iphikratean hoplites" as less likely to confuse moderns than "Iphikratean peltasts". His wording perhaps suggests he believed the suggestion original to himself.

Seems somewhat perverse to me, though, when both Nepos and Diodorus say the troops concerned were called hoplites before the reform but peltasts after. Maybe we should just call them "iphicrateans", which is a mere five syllables.

[Erpingham]

It also seems that the troop type called an "Iphicratean hoplite" is now called an "Iphicratean peltast", if he existed.

I note Luke Ueda-Sarson in the piece Nik linked advocated "Iphikratean hoplites" as less likely to confuse moderns than "Iphikratean peltasts". His wording perhaps suggests he believed the suggestion original to himself.

Seems somewhat perverse to me, though, when both Nepos and Diodorus say the troops concerned were called hoplites before the reform but peltasts after. Maybe we should just call them "iphicrateans", which is a mere five syllables.

Richard Nelson's Armies of the Greek and Persian Wars (1975) first introduced me to Iphicratean hoplites and this line continued in Warry's Warfare in the Classical World (1980), so I'd suggest it has some history and may have been the dominant paradigm at some point.  As no one seems to be sure how they operated, how widespread they were or even whether they were more than a thought experiment, it's a difficult one to be definitive about.

[Jim Webster]

It also seems that the troop type called an "Iphicratean hoplite" is now called an "Iphicratean peltast", if he existed.

I note Luke Ueda-Sarson in the piece Nik linked advocated "Iphikratean hoplites" as less likely to confuse moderns than "Iphikratean peltasts". His wording perhaps suggests he believed the suggestion original to himself.

Seems somewhat perverse to me, though, when both Nepos and Diodorus say the troops concerned were called hoplites before the reform but peltasts after. Maybe we should just call them "iphicrateans", which is a mere five syllables.

Technically I think iphicrateans are the boots they wore 

[Andreas Johansson]

Technically I think iphicrateans are the boots they wore 

Actually, I believe those are properly called "iphicratids".

[Jim Webster]

Technically I think iphicrateans are the boots they wore 

Actually, I believe those are properly called "iphicratids".

you could well be right
Perhaps it was the socks that were iphicrateans ?     

[Justin Swanton]

Technically I think iphicrateans are the boots they wore 

Actually, I believe those are properly called "iphicratids".

you could well be right
Perhaps it was the socks that were iphicrateans ?     

No, the iphicrateans were the smaller caligulae-type boots worn by young aspiring Greek teans.

[Justin Swanton]

From my point of view, and it is a personal point of view, infantry in ancient armies either skirmished in front of or behind or to the sides of the main 'battleline' OR they formed up IN the main 'battleline'.

Spartans at least could switch between roles in mid-battle, with their fastest hoplites stripping off all unnecessary armour and then pursuing enemy skirmishers. If they were able to scatter psiloi-class troops then they were definitely peltast-class at that moment.

[Duncan Head]

No, the iphicrateans were the smaller caligulae-type boots worn by young aspiring Greek teans.

I think that the reference in Diodoros is the only definite occurrence of the word iphikratidai in the entire corpus of Greek literature (there are a couple of other instances, in Alciphron and Proclus, I believe, which are both read as iphikratids by some editors but differently by others). Therefore, I don't think we can say with any confidence what they are, except for what Diodoros says - they are "light and easy to untie". He doesn't even call them "boots", but by the vaguer word ὑποδέσεις/hypodeseis, "footwear".

[simonw]

Justin,

I'm afraid that I don't agree. I interpret he 'Ekdromoi' role for 'runners out' from the ranks to have been  a predefined role for the 'youngest and fittest' in the ranks (maybe one per file or and with their equipment adjusted accordingly. It was never the case as far as I can see that the whole of a Spartan (or any other Hoplite) formation suddenly broke ranks and changed from Phalanx into an anti-skirmisher (peltast) role and then reformed again after chasing any enemy skirmishers off.

If we were to go that way, then we would have to re-classify Spartans as 'close' order LMI in WRG 6th terms (i.e. 4 figs/60mm base).

Cheers
Simon